If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Purpose: The purpose of this project is to create a Hall of Fame for each franchise whereby each franchise will honor those individuals whose contributions and accomplishments are most notable, significant, and enduring to that franchise's history. This project is not about simply honoring those with the best statistics with each franchise.

Standards: Each franchise has its own unique history and context, and thus contributions and accomplishments that may stand out remarkably within one franchise's history, may not be so remarkable in another franchise's history. Standards from franchise to franchise will inherently vary, and thus there should be no impetus to create equal standards among the franchises or to aspire to the standards of the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Consequently, subjectivity within the context of the franchise in question will play an inevitable role when considering an individual's contributions and accomplishments with respect to that franchise. In sum, a franchise's Hall of Fame should be unaffected by the standards and contexts of other franchises as well as the National Baseball Hall of Fame, and should be entirely a product of its own history.

Election Format: Elections will be conducted one franchise at a time starting in chronological order with the oldest continuously and currently operational franchise. Each election will last approximately seven days.- Ballot Size: Voters can select up to 15 players and 5 contributors per election. Ballots that exceed the maximum limits at the close of an election will not be counted. There is no minimum ballot size.- Ballot Editing: To account for ongoing discussion, voters may edit their ballots as often as necessary through the end of an election.- Election Percentage: Any individual that is listed on at least 75% of either the player or contributor submitted ballots will be elected to that team's Hall of Fame. In instances where an individual receive votes as both a player and a contributor, that individual will be elected if listed on at least 75% of ballots in either category or if the individual's combined vote total is at least 75% of the category with the greatest number of ballots submitted.- Subsequent Rounds: After an election has been performed for each franchise, a second round of elections will commence, again proceeding in chronological order. A third round of elections (and perhaps beyond) may also be held depending on interest.

Eligibility:- Players: Players may be considered by any currently operational franchise for which they appeared and are eligible either immediately upon officially retiring or after having not appeared at any level of professional baseball for an entire season for reasons not due to injury. - Contributors: Individuals that contributed in other capacities to a franchise may be considered, including managers, coaches, executives, owners, and broadcasters, but not fictional characters such as mascots. Contributors that are still active may only be elected by their current employing franchise, and cannot be considered by prior employing franchises until no longer active (this does not apply to individuals who are employed by a franchise only in nominal and/or non-integral ways, such as in scouting, consulting, or public relations capacities). - Multiple Capacities: The totality of contributions and accomplishments with respect to a franchise are to be considered, and thus an individual can only be elected once by a franchise. For purposes of ballot size limits, an individual should be designated either a player or contributor based on what the voter perceives to be the individual's greater role with the franchise. An individual should not be listed as either a player or contributor merely to facilitate ballot space for the other category.- Relocations/Renaming: Franchises that have relocated and/or been renamed, may still consider and elect individuals that were with the franchise prior to the relocation/renaming.- Multiple Franchises: An individual may be considered and elected by multiple franchises.

CHICAGO WHITE SOX
This election will end on Sunday, February 20, 2011, at 11:00 a.m.

I voted for Joe Jackson for the Indians, but won't here. I guess how much of a debate it becomes will become clear based on how close to the 75% threshhold he gets. If he's close, it's likely, I'm afraid.

Current players not yet eligible for listing
Mark Buehrle
Magglio Ordonez
Current contributors who I'm not clear on their current eligibility (won't affect this ballot, though)
Ozzie Guillen*
Ken Williams*

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

I don't think we'll have much of a Joe Jackson dispute at least this election, with only 2 of the first nine voting for him. He'd need 19 in a row at this point to make 75%. I don't remember an election in this project with 28 or more votes, so that seems quite unlikely.

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

I can't speak for Ace, but I also chose Wynn. He won 22 games for the Sox in 1959. It's safe to say without his contribution, the Sox wouldn't have won the pennant, and when you go 40 years between pennants like the White Sox do, you need to honor the people who got you there.

I can't speak for Ace, but I also chose Wynn. He won 22 games for the Sox in 1959. It's safe to say without his contribution, the Sox wouldn't have won the pennant, and when you go 40 years between pennants like the White Sox do, you need to honor the people who got you there.

Thanks for the response. If you want to honor a pitcher who got them there, shouldn't it be Bob Shaw instead of Wynn?

I can't speak for Ace, but I also chose Wynn. He won 22 games for the Sox in 1959. It's safe to say without his contribution, the Sox wouldn't have won the pennant, and when you go 40 years between pennants like the White Sox do, you need to honor the people who got you there.

Wynn was good that year, and on the whole, though relatively short, did not have an insignificant tenure with the Sox, winning a Cy Young and making the All Star in three of the five seasons. That being said, the strength of his case with the Sox seems to be on that one season, and while I don't doubt that as we go on, players that had notable seasons, and/or games, and/or moments, in helping their team win, but relatively little else with that team, may attract strong support for these Halls, but it seems kind of early to acknowledge someone like Wynn on a 110 year old franchise like the Sox. The Sox also had Nellie Fox (the 1959 MVP), Luis Aparicio, Billy Pierce in 1959, and all three are likely to be elected this time around - so it's not as if the 1959 team won't be well represented after one round. Sherm Lollar is also a good bet to eventually make it here. Plus, Wynn's career 102 ERA+ with the Sox doesn't really stand out, and even in 1959, though he was the big winner, his 120 ERA+ was 20 points behind teammate Bob Shaw.

Wynn at least made a real positive contribution in '59. Bill Veeck was a very talented marketer, of himself not least of all, but what else did he ever do for the Sox? As Veeck graciously concedes in one of his books, the team he purchased had been put into contending shape by the previous administration under Charlie Comiskey's grandson Chuck. Veeck enjoyed the 1959 pennant, traded off a lot of young talent in a futile effort to repeat, then sold the club and walked away. It wasn't a demolition job on the scale of a Harry Frazee, but Veeck did the club no good in the very brief time he was there.

His second time around he had some real success that didn't just arise out of being in the right place at the right time, but he was operating on Nonsufficient Funds and again had to leave relatively quickly, and without building anything permanent. Other than being Bill Veeck and soaking up more attention than everybody else in the room, what did he do to justify a White Sox team Hall of Fame vote?

Thanks for the response. If you want to honor a pitcher who got them there, shouldn't it be Bob Shaw instead of Wynn?

Originally Posted by DoubleX

Wynn was good that year, and on the whole, though relatively short, did not have an insignificant tenure with the Sox, winning a Cy Young and making the All Star in three of the five seasons. That being said, the strength of his case with the Sox seems to be on that one season, and while I don't doubt that as we go on, players that had notable seasons, and/or games, and/or moments, in helping their team win, but relatively little else with that team, may attract strong support for these Halls, but it seems kind of early to acknowledge someone like Wynn on a 110 year old franchise like the Sox. The Sox also had Nellie Fox (the 1959 MVP), Luis Aparicio, Billy Pierce in 1959, and all three are likely to be elected this time around - so it's not as if the 1959 team won't be well represented after one round. Sherm Lollar is also a good bet to eventually make it here. Plus, Wynn's career 102 ERA+ with the Sox doesn't really stand out, and even in 1959, though he was the big winner, his 120 ERA+ was 20 points behind teammate Bob Shaw.

That 110 year-old franchise has been to the World Series twice in the last 90 years. In 1959, they won the pennant by five games over Cleveland, who traded Wynn to the Sox in 1958. I don't really care what his ERA+ was, if he was still in Cleveland in 1959, and won 22 games for them, the Sox don't win the pennant. Not taking anything away from Shaw, but Wynn is in my Sox HOF.

That 110 year-old franchise has been to the World Series twice in the last 90 years. In 1959, they won the pennant by five games over Cleveland, who traded Wynn to the Sox in 1958. I don't really care what his ERA+ was, if he was still in Cleveland in 1959, and won 22 games for them, the Sox don't win the pennant. Not taking anything away from Shaw, but Wynn is in my Sox HOF.

Is he one of the top 15 players in your White Sox Hall? The fun of a project like this is that everyone has their own approach. For me, I wasn't planning on getting into World Series heroes who otherwise had short tenures with a given franchise until rounds two or three for the 100+ year old franchises and am focusing on the best long career guys at this point; but I can definitely see why someone like Wynn would be on a first round ballot. Particularly to a fan of a given team if that team has only had a handful of pennants.

Wynn at least made a real positive contribution in '59. Bill Veeck was a very talented marketer, of himself not least of all, but what else did he ever do for the Sox? As Veeck graciously concedes in one of his books, the team he purchased had been put into contending shape by the previous administration under Charlie Comiskey's grandson Chuck. Veeck enjoyed the 1959 pennant, traded off a lot of young talent in a futile effort to repeat, then sold the club and walked away. It wasn't a demolition job on the scale of a Harry Frazee, but Veeck did the club no good in the very brief time he was there.

His second time around he had some real success that didn't just arise out of being in the right place at the right time, but he was operating on Nonsufficient Funds and again had to leave relatively quickly, and without building anything permanent. Other than being Bill Veeck and soaking up more attention than everybody else in the room, what did he do to justify a White Sox team Hall of Fame vote?

It doesn't seem like Veeck inflicted that much damage on the White Sox in the following years as the team was very competitive through 1967, finishing above .500 each year, winning at least 94 games in three seasons, and finishing second in three seasons. One of the drawbacks of the lack of expanded playoffs back then is that history may have lost out on some other great teams, especially great teams that were constantly runnersup to the Yankees. The White Sox of this period being an example, another being the Indians throughout much of the 50s.

I grew up in Indianapolis in the 1960's, when the Indians were primarily a White Sox farm team, and generally a strong one, so I'm well aware that Veeck didn't destroy the Sox farm system and the major league team remained strong. However, I don't see that saying the damage he did was relatively minor on a historical scale is an argument in favor of voting for him.

Below is a post from a White Sox fans website that illustrates how Veeck is regarded in Soxdom. This is pretty typical; on another site I found a poster calling the Earl Battey trade Veeck's worst, and someone else chimed in to say that was a very strong claim, considering some of the others he made.

"Your post, and Rich Lindberg's various White Sox books, should dispel any of the incorrect, revisionist history about Bill Veeck's role as White Sox owner. He is invariably pictured as a "fan's owner", full of cute and novel promotions to attract fans...he basically destroyed the franchise after his purchase for a ridiculously low price from the inept Comiskey Family in 1959. The White Sox team that won the pennant in 1959 was the work of John Rigney and, to some degree,Charles Comiskey, not Bill Veeck. His only impact on that team was the late season acquisition of Ted Kluszewski, who had a tremendous World Series in a losing cause.

"The hidden strength of that 1959 team was its excellent farm system and a group of players on the verge of stardom. These were not newly signed phenoms, but triple AAA level players ready to be promoted. They included Johnny Callison, John Romano, Earl Battey, Barry Latman, Ken McBride, Don Mincher, and Norm Cash. Veeck traded basically all of them by the time the 1960 season started (McBride was lost in the initial expansion draft at the end of 1960). The greatest insult was trading the 19 year old Johnny Callison - he was only 19 or 20 when traded!

"These rank as some of the worst trades in major league history, certainly on a par with the Broglio for Brock Cubs' trade. What is worst than that trade, is that Veeck and GM Hank Greenberg accomplished this disaster in a series of trades, not just one mistake. No, they made of series of them and thus kept the White Sox from being a significant force in the 1960's. Surely the 1964 and 1967 White Sox would have perservered if they had kept any one of these athletes."

This certainly overstates the case. Veeck did not by any means destroy the club, and furthermore, his considerable talents as a promoter were of genuine value to his teams and should not be dismissed as cutesy novelties. The poster quoted above ignores the fact that the White Sox did get some useful players in the trades he mentions, including Juan Pizarro. And, of course, it's easier to see that these trades were unfortunate now than it would have been at the time.

Making all those concessions, the fact remains that Veeck traded away a large amount of young talent, giving a substantial mortgage on the future in order to guarantee immediate victories he failed to produce. Because he thought the team needed more power, he traded away Don Mincher and Norm Cash, leaving the Sox to go through the '60's with Joe Cunningham and Tommy McCraw as their first basemen. What sense does that make? He cannot be considered to have done the club any good, and he isn't even a Harry Frazee kind of figure, somebody who did so much harm that he changed the direction of the club for a long time to come and therefore deserves to be regarded as someone of historical importance. Veeck just took a team that was very good and left it a short while later, still good but substantially less good than if he had never owned it. I don't think that justifies putting him into the team's Hall of Fame.

I guess hindsight is 20/20. The team did afterall win that rare WS in 1959, and the team was very competitive for most of the following decade. I think a bigger part of the team's problem was having to compete against a Yankees dynasty, and thus from a management perspective, if you wanted a chance you'd have to stock up while the window was open because who knows how and when the youngsters will develop. And ultimately, with the exception of 1964 when the Sox finished just a game behind the Yankees, they were generally well behind first place anyway, even if winning 90+ games. So would holding on to a few more young players have bridged the gap? Let's take a look at the year by year results:

1960: 87 wins, 12 games back of the Yankees
1961: 86 wins, 23 games back of the Yankees
1962: 85 wins, 11 games back of the Yankees
1963: 94 wins, 10.5 games back of the Yankeese
1964: 98 wins, 1 game back of the Yankees
1965: 95 wins, 7 games back of the Twins
1966: 83 wins, 15 games back of the Orioles
1967: 89 wins, 7 games back of the Red Sox

The competition was just so good that even had Veeck made different decisions, the Sox may at best may only have captured one additional pennant (1964). But to say that Veeck gutted or dismantled a team that was pretty much as competitive as any of the other non-Yankees teams in the following years, seems to be an overly harsh criticism.

Anyway, I'm not supporting Veeck and don't plan to, but I think AL teams during the 50s and early 60s had a monumental task of trying to keep pace with the Yankees juggernaut in most years, and I think that pressured teams to make what in retrospect might look like rash decisions.

When I was young I was a great admirer of Veeck's and I learned a lot about the baseball world from reading his books. My view of him has become much more ambivalent since I read Gerald Eskanazi's biography, although I still respect his abilities greatly. My close engagement with him is probably why I feel strongly about this, but at any rate I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest he should not be rewarded for his worst moment in baseball by being elected to the unfortunate club's Hall of Fame.

I don't think what he did to the White Sox had anything to do with the nature of power relations in the American League, it was just Veeck being Veeck. Veeck had the remarkable number of four different tenures as major league owner-operator (including the Sox twice), and another in the minor leagues at Milwaukee. That's probably unique in history. He never stayed long in one place, and although in every situation there was always some particular reason he had to bail out, the pattern was repeated so often that it becomes clear what was really going on. He himself says in one of his books that he simply enjoyed building an organization up but got bored tending to it. After a little while, he would get antsy and want to move on.

With an attitude like that, he was always willing to concentrate on today and let somebody else worry about the future. As he also says, he believed the only pennant race you can win is this one. This is probably why, although he was a very talented and perhaps even brilliant man, he never really had a great long-term impact on any club he ran except perhaps his first attempt in Milwaukee.

He put a crimp in the White Sox' future but it's certainly true he didn't come close to destroying the team, and that is the ultimate reason he doesn't belong in their Hall of Fame. I'm sure most people will look at it differently, and I don't know whether I'll have the nerve to do it myself, but I'm seriously thinking about voting for Harry Frazee when we come to the Red Sox because his actions changed the fundamental nature and the history of that team for many years. Veeck didn't have anything like that kind of impact in Chicago, or anywhere else for that matter. His first tenure as owner was decidedly unfortunate for the White Sox, but it didn't make a fundamental change in the team's destiny.